Programme budgeting and marginal analysis: an approach to priority setting in need of refinement

Priority Setting Meets Multiple Streams: A Match to Be Further Examined? Comment on "Introducing New Priority Setting and Resource Allocation Processes in a Canadian Healthcare Organization: A Case Study Analysis Informed by Multiple Streams Theory

With demand for health services continuing to grow as populations age and new technologies emerge to meet health needs, healthcare policy-makers are under constant pressure to set priorities, ie, to make choices about the health services that can and cannot be funded within available resources. In a recent paper, Smith et al apply an influential policy studies framework - Kingdon's multiple streams approach (MSA) - to explore the factors that explain why one health service delivery organization adopted a formal priority setting framework (in the form of programme budgeting and marginal analysis [PBMA]) to assist it in making priority setting decisions. MSA is a theory of agenda-setting, ie, how it is that different issues do or do not reach a decision-making point. In this paper, I reflect on the use of the MSA framework to explore priority setting processes and how the framework might be applied to similar cases in future.

Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment

OBJECTIVES

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been suggested by some researchers as a method to capture the benefits beyond quality adjusted life-years in a transparent and consistent manner. The objectives of this article were to analyze the possible application of MCDA approaches in health technology assessment and to describe their relative advantages and disadvantages.

METHODS

This article begins with an introduction to the most common types of MCDA models and a critical review of state-of-the-art methods for incorporating multiple criteria in health technology assessment. An overview of MCDA is provided and is compared against the current UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence health technology appraisal process. A generic MCDA modeling approach is described, and the different MCDA modeling approaches are applied to a hypothetical case study.

RESULTS

A comparison of the different MCDA approaches is provided, and the generic issues that need consideration before the application of MCDA in health technology assessment are examined.

CONCLUSIONS

There are general practical issues that might arise from using an MCDA approach, and it is suggested that appropriate care be taken to ensure the success of MCDA techniques in the appraisal process.

Priority setting in health: origins, description and application of the Australian Assessing Cost-Effectiveness initiative

This article reports on the 'Assessing Cost-Effectiveness' (ACE) initiative in priority setting from Australia. It commences with why priority setting is topical and notes that a wide variety of approaches are available. In assessing these various approaches, it is argued that a useful first step is to consider what constitutes an 'ideal' approach to priority setting. A checklist to guide priority setting is presented based on guidance from economic theory, ethics and social justice, lessons from empirical experience and the needs of decision-makers. The checklist is seen as an important contribution because it is the first time that criteria from such a broad range of considerations have been brought together to develop a framework for priority setting that endeavors to be both realistic and theoretically sound. The checklist will then be applied to a selection of existing approaches in order to illustrate their deficiencies and to provide the platform for explaining the unique features of the ACE approach. A case study (ACE-Cancer) will then be presented and assessed against the checklist, including reaction from stakeholders in the cancer field. The article concludes with an overview of the full body of ACE research completed to date, together with some reflections on the ACE experience.

Bridging the "know-do" gap in healthcare priority-setting: what role has academic research played?

"Evidence-informed" priority-setting in healthcare has become increasingly important in most health systems around the world. This paper presents the results of a two-part study of the role of academic health services research in healthcare priority-setting. First, a review of peer-reviewed literature was done to elicit the factors important to priority-setting. Second, a survey of authors of this literature was conducted to determine the value of relevant academic work to decision-making

Institutional considerations in priority setting: transactions cost perspective on PBMA

Programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is increasingly being used as a method of priority setting in the health care sector. Despite this, PBMA has, on occasions, been subject to problems in its application which can be seen as being 'institutional' in nature. This paper examines the extent to which the institutional setting of PBMA affects the way in which it can be conducted. In particular, a transactions costs perspective is taken to analyse the extent to which variation in such costs can alter the incentives of the individual participants. A number of recommendations for improving the sustainability of such projects is then provided. Following this, the implications which this 'institutional' approach has for the evaluation of PBMA are set out.

The evidence-based approach in health policy and health care delivery

Evidence-based approaches are prominent on the national and international agendas for health policy and health research. It is unclear what the implications of this approach are for the production and distribution of health in populations, given the notion of multiple determinants in health. It is equally unclear what kind of barriers there are to the adoption of evidence-based approaches in health care practice. This paper sketches some developments in the way in which health policy is informed by the results from health research. It summarises evidence-based approaches in health at three impact levels: intersectoral assessment, national health care policy, and evidence-based medicine in everyday practice. Consensus is growing on the role of broad and specific health determinants, including health care, as well as on priority setting based on the burden of diseases. In spite of methodological constraints, there is a demand for intersectoral assessments, especially in health sector reform. Initiators of policy changes in other sectors may be held responsible for providing the evidence related to health. There are limited possibilities for priority setting at the national health care policy level. Hence, there is a decentralisation of responsibilities for resource use. Health care providers are encouraged to assume agency roles for both patients and society and asked to promote and deliver effective and efficient health care. Governments will have to design a national framework to facilitate their organisation and legal framework to enhance evidence-based health policy. Treatment guidelines supported by evidence on effectiveness and efficiency will be one essential element in this process. With the increasing number of advocates for the enhancement of population health in the policy arenas, evidence-based approaches provide the information and some of the tools to help with priority setting.

Priority-setting in New Zealand: translating principles into practice

In May 1998 the New Zealand Health Funding Authority released a discussion paper which proposed a principles-based approach to setting purchasing priorities that incorporates the economic methods of programme budgeting and marginal analysis, and cost-utility analysis. The principles upon which the process was to be based are effectiveness, cost, equity of health outcomes, Maori health and acceptability. This essay describes and critiques issues associated with translating the principles into practice, most particularly the proposed methods for evaluating the effectiveness and measuring the cost of services. It is argued that the proposals make an important contribution towards the development of a method for prioritizing services which challenges our thinking about those services and their goals, and which is systematic, explicit, and transparent. The shift towards 'thinking at the margin' and systematically reviewing the value for money of competing claims on resources is likely to improve the quality of decision-making compared with the status quo. This does not imply that prioritization can, or should, be undertaken by means of any simple formula. Any prioritization process should always be guided by informed judgement. The approach is more appropriate for some services than for others. Key methodological issues that need further consideration include the choice of instrument for measuring health gains, the identification of marginal services, how to combine qualitative and quantitative information, and how to ensure consistency across different levels of decision-making.